Lord Sugar’s curmudgeonly firings on The Apprentice might make
for riveting viewing, but the Americans have a version with much higher
stakes.

Every Thursday, Fox TV airs Does Someone have to Go?, a reality television series in which troubled businesses hand the reins to their employees and allow them to fire colleagues who are not pulling their weight.

It is grim, Lord of the Flies viewing. Staff turn on each other, they pore over each other’s pay packages and one of them eventually breaks down in tears as they are evicted by their peers.

Those being ousted don’t just miss out on a potential opportunity to cling to the coat tails of their hero-entrepreneur. As the dramatic voiceover reminds viewers, they are losing their real jobs and livelihoods.

It is a casual approach to hiring and firing that feels horrifying to British eyes, but is not preceived with the same sense of unease in America, where employment law is stacked much more heavily in favour of the companies paying the salaries. Typically, staff in the US are given just two weeks’ notice, rather than the four weeks that are statutory in Britain, or the three months or more that are commonplace. It is also much easier to let people go. Employers are not required to give staff so many chances to improve their performance before striking them off the payroll. Instead, they can pull the trigger point blank.

As one New York-born chief executive tells me, every member of staff approaches their job thinking that they could be fired at any time, and most members of staff have been given the chop at least once in their careers.

There are obvious downsides to this. An easy-come-easy-go culture makes it easy for unscrupulous bosses to mete out punishment because of personal grudges, or fire staff whose lifestyle changes all of a sudden because they have children or face a major illness. Quite apart from the moral argument for employee protection, this kind of decision-making may well be at odds with the best interests of the business. It creates an insecure workforce, constantly eyeing up the next potential move instead of focusing on the job in hand, and does nothing to nurture staff loyalty.

However, there is a silver lining here. If companies can fire at will, they can afford to hire in the same spirit, making it easier for companies to staff up as new opportunities come their way. Hard-pressed enterprises, unsure of how much business they are likely to bring in, do not need to bellyache over the equally grim prospects of having to pay idle staff or turn new contracts away. They can be nimble and reactive, without the threat of being burdened by overheads they cannot afford, and which could bring the whole house down.

For many economists, this has been one of the keys to America’s comparatively rapid recovery. US companies were faster and more savage in their cuts when the financial crisis hit, but they are now in the business of adding jobs at a time when unemployment in much of Europe is still rising.

It is too early to say how President Obama’s Medicare tax will affect job creation figures, but there is not doubt that America’s employment laws give businesses the confidence to take on new staff, stimulating an upward spiral of wealth creation and confidence. It is particularly true among small and medium-sized businesses, where cash flow is often most under pressure, but which collectively form the engine-room of the US economy.

There is a balance to be struck, of course – there are people, not just numbers at stake - but there is no doubt that many British businesses would benefit from a dose of this freedom.

There is also a significant upside for employees, besides the sheer fact that it makes companies feel brave enough to put them on the pay roll. If redundancy is commonplace, there is less social stigma attached to losing a job than is the case in the UK. In Britain, the financial toll of unemployment is often coupled with shame, no matter how many people have lost their jobs during the economic crisis. In America, once the television tears have been wiped away, it seems easier for people to pick themselves up and dust themselves off, confident that the rejection reflects the economic conditions more than it does their ability.

Some of this will also to be to do with national character, of course. It reminds me of that favourite bugbear of British technology entrepreneurs, looking green-eyed at the levels of adulation their rivals enjoy across the Atlantic. In the US, entrepreneurs whose businesses go pop are welcomed straight back to the fold and allowed to start again, without a trace of cynicism. Their enterprise may have failed, but the experience they gained is seen as a feather in their cap, rather than evidence that they couldn’t cut it. In the UK, one failure is an indelible black mark.

However, the brassy swagger of American employees who get laid off undoubtedly has a lot to do with just how normal it is to be fired here. Forget the economic case; it is the strongest social argument I have seen for handing employers more power.

Land of free banking? Definitely not

America might be all whizz-bang, hi-tech in some regards, but it is way behind the times in others. One of the teething problems newcomers come up against is the small matter of automatic bank payments.

In Britain, renters usually set up a direct debit and rely on their money being whipped out of their accounts once a month, without any further fuss.

Not so in America. Every four weeks, tenants have to write a cheque, post it and wait for their landlord to bank it. Bank customers can pay their branch to send the cheque for them, but they will have to pay for the privilege. Land of the free, America may be. Land of free or efficient banking it is definitely not.

The realtor racket

When is an entrepreneur an entrepreneur? And when are they just a shyster? In New York’s cut-throat property market, the whole “realtor” system strikes me as a bit of a racket: would-be tenants pay these estate agents enormous fees - usually 15pc of annual rent - just to be allowed to have a look at properties, which they will rarely have vetted beforehand. There is little way around it, and those who attempt to navigate their own path are beset by other costs.

The newest trend in the Big Apple is for a housemate matchmaking service, where a self-styled professional will come and assess your ability to get on with a stranger. Customers who take them up on the offer typically pay a month’s rent in fees. Call me old-fashioned, but I think a cup of coffee and a chat offer better odds. Still, you’ve got to admire the gumption.